"A step in the right direction is the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a United Nations’ proposal to assert some sanity over the trade by creating stricter standards for all cross-border transfers of weapons. As Reuters described it, the treaty “would create binding requirements for states to review cross-border contracts to ensure that weapons will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism, violations of humanitarian law or organized crime.”

To date, 67 states have ratified the treaty. One conspicuous absence, however, is the United States, which accounts for more than 40 percent of global transfers in conventional arms. To the surprise of no one, the National Rifle Association (NRA), perhaps the most powerful lobbying group in the U.S., has used its clout to block ratification of the treaty.

Though the treaty would not affect U.S. gun owners, this has not stopped the NRA from mongering unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the U.N. trying to destroy the Second Amendment, asserting “There can be no question that what is taking shape at the U.N. is an all-out attack on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.”

This is shamefully disingenuous, even by NRA standards. The organization knows that the treaty is not about Americans’ right to bear arms. But that isn’t what the NRA cares about. Rather, it exists solely to increase the profits of gun manufactures. As former Ambassador Dan Simpson wrote for The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, what the NRA “wants is not to preserve Americans’ Second Amendment rights. What it wants is to increase sales of guns.” Americans are increasingly put at risk by cowardly politicians too afraid to stand up against the gun industry. And now, the worlds most destitute people living in a nightmare of violence will continue to suffer because of the gun lobby’s influence on foreign policy."

.[Edited 10/3/17 22:26pm]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

So you think the answer is more control and more dependency on the government? I thought it was the corrupt racist government that was oppressing people?

Corrupted politicians utilizing racism in society to achieve their goals (such as foreign policy)
Are they racist or does the term racist become redundant when dealing with sociopathy?
Either way, not the point. Stay on topic.
I.E weapons manufacturers and policy.

.[Edited 10/4/17 5:13am]

"It means finding the very human narrative of a man navigating between idealism and pragmatism, faith and politics, non-violence, the pitfalls of acclaim as the perils of rejection" – Lesley Hazleton on the first muslim, the prophet.

The NRA is correct this idea is, of course, a means to create strict new limits and regulations on gun ownership. The real mongers are the ones that support this idea. As I said this is also about giving more power to government and makes people more dependant on government. And is a means to remove power from the US to regulate its own laws.

See there is no way to make sure a gun is not going to end up in the hands of a criminal. NONE. It would mean that each gun would have to somehow be pre-verified. That is, in essence, a jim crow* like regulation that would price guns out of reach.

*By jim crow I mean laws meant to circumvent rights by adding difficult to meet standards. And I use that term because this IS a Civil Rights issue.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick

The NRA is correct this idea is, of course, a means to create strict new limits and regulations on gun ownership. The real mongers are the ones that support this idea. As I said this is also about giving more power to government and makes people more dependant on government. And is a means to remove power from the US to regulate its own laws.

See there is no way to make sure a gun is not going to end up in the hands of a criminal. NONE. It would mean that each gun would have to somehow be pre-verified. That is, in essence, a jim crow* like regulation that would price guns out of reach.

*By jim crow I mean laws meant to circumvent rights by adding difficult to meet standards. And I use that term because this IS a Civil Rights issue.

Blah, blah, blah.

Matthew 5:38-39
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

When out "great forefathers" decided that we have the right to bear arms, I am quite sure they werent thinking about uzis and AK-47s, there were no guns in those days that had the ability to clear an entire fucking block in 30 seconds. Why is it inconceivable that we revisit the gun laws, especially considering the nonsense that we are dealing with in this country? I'm not saying to ban guns, but you cannot convince me that anyone in this society needs an AK-47, or any semoi-automatic rifle. It's ludicrous, and it shouldnt be this complicated.

When out "great forefathers" decided that we have the right to bear arms, I am quite sure they werent thinking about uzis and AK-47s, there were no guns in those days that had the ability to clear an entire fucking block in 30 seconds. Why is it inconceivable that we revisit the gun laws, especially considering the nonsense that we are dealing with in this country? I'm not saying to ban guns, but you cannot convince me that anyone in this society needs an AK-47, or any semoi-automatic rifle. It's ludicrous, and it shouldnt be this complicated.

Agreed.

The "great forefathers" did not have in mind one individual being able to shoot 600 people in a single setting when they set about wanting to protect the ability of militias to arm themselves.And the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from a government turned bad is sillyas well as there is nothing that'll protect our household from a tank, a nuclear submarine, or a stealth bomber.

Matthew 5:38-39
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

When out "great forefathers" decided that we have the right to bear arms, I am quite sure they werent thinking about uzis and AK-47s, there were no guns in those days that had the ability to clear an entire fucking block in 30 seconds. Why is it inconceivable that we revisit the gun laws, especially considering the nonsense that we are dealing with in this country? I'm not saying to ban guns, but you cannot convince me that anyone in this society needs an AK-47, or any semoi-automatic rifle. It's ludicrous, and it shouldnt be this complicated.